Peter Hujar

[r.e.]

On the weekend, I went to the Fisher Landau Center for Art in Long Island City: http://www.flcart.org/

This gallery, located in a three story building that used to be used to manufacture parachutes, houses Ms. Emily Fisher Landau's collection of modern art. It is a remarkable space with some wonderful art.

At the moment, one floor is dedicated to a scaled-down version of a recent Whitney exhibition that showcased works from Ms. Fisher Landau's collection. There is a catalogue from this show which I am now considering purchasing: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Fisher-Collection-Whitney-American/dp/0300171080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326760507&sr=8-1

Now to my question. The works include several portraits by a photographer named Peter Hujar. I had not heard of him before, but was quite taken with his work. Even when the portraits are of well known people, they really stand on their own. They are all square format, but I have a feeling that they were actually shot large format and cropped rather than shot 6x6. Does anyone know what format he used?

There are additional images by Hujar on the Matthew Marks Gallery site: http://www.matthewmarks.com/artists/peter-hujar/ A Google search for his name plus images will cough up a good many, although I should perhaps mention that some people may find a couple of his photographs offensive if not pornographic.

If you go to the Fisher Landau Center during this show, you will also find a rather good Mapplethorpe.

[johnielvis]

yah...seen lots of his stuff a while ago--I recall they were all square and believe I read it was a 2 1/4 camera--I can't verify though--I just think I would have notied it and remembered if it were something different

or maybe Ijust assumed that since he died of aids like mapplethorpe and they are confused in my head--mapplethorpe used mostly hasselblad

I'll go poking around again and see if I can fnid out

[Kirk Gittings]

I've never been to the museum, but I photographed her (Ms. fisher Landau) house in New Mexico some years back-a few million in art in that house alone.

[r.e.]

Kirk, her Gallery in New York is a beautiful space. Despite being free, they don't get a lot of visitors. In the 90 minutes that I spent there last Saturday afternoon, there were maybe ten or so other visitors. It's a location issue. There are some great art spaces in that part of Queens - the Noguchi Museum, Socrates Sculpture Park, MoMa PS1, Museum of the Moving Image and, if one is a graffiti fan, 5 Pointz - but they are not on the main circuit. By the way, Ms. Fisher Landau is now in her early 90s.

Jonielvis, I just came across an old thread on this site that suggests that Hujar photographed in 8x10 but cropped to 8x8. There is a link in the post, apparently one that substantiates this, but it is to an article in the London Times, which is now behind a pay wall. But one day's access is not expensive, so I'll check out the link tomorrow. The thread, which is well worth reading, can be found by a search on this site for "square format".

[johnielvis]

kool beans I'll look up the thread right now....

if he used 8x10 I'm a gonna go back and have me another look at his stuff....I do hate to travel,but maybe I should...never been to new york....

wow.....he did lots of stuff too....maybe THATs why I remember 2 1/4.....I seem to remember a LOT of pics...

thanks

hey--I just found this

http://leahjanefisher.blogspot.com/2009/03/peter-hujar.html

it says that he used 8x10 for his EARLIER work which is "blander".....so maybe he switched to 2 1/4....that's the impression it gives....

[Jay DeFehr]

He apprenticed for Avedon, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn he used 8x10 early on, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gave up the 8x10 around the same time he gave up fashion. Whatever he used, he made some lovely photos.

[r.e.]

I think that it is interesting that the scaled down version of the Whitney show includes six of Hujar's portraits. Somebody decided, with works by Jasper Johns, etc. to choose from, to devote a good deal of space to his work. It's hard to explain why, but they are quite unlike anything that I have seen before. They are formally elegant but psychologically raw, more in relation to Hujar than the subjects. The fact that the subject is Susan Sontag or Edwin Denby or Devine is kind of beside the point. For most people, they aren't even recognisable. And interestingly, despite their seeming diversity in terms of place, all but one or two of the photographs were clearly made in the same room, although it takes some close looking to figure that out.

[johnielvis]

yeah I noticed that same room thing too---the first time I saw his stuff there was a lot like that--I didn't know anything about the guy so I figured he was just some poor dude with no studio that shot in his apartment....and didn't care that the background was an apartment...no backdrops to make variety....the floor of an apartment...etc...gave that "starving artist/hobbiest" impression...like he wanted to have perfect backgrounds/settings but couldn't arrange it with the schedule he had/funds he had....

anyways...that's the idea I got-first impression years ago